For Once, Congress Does It's Job!

Under Obamacare a business with fifty or more full time (or full time equivalent) employees has to provide Health Insurance. But what if the employee
is a Veteran and already has Insurance through the VA.

Rodney Davis a Republican Congress man from Illinois thought of this and authored a Bill to fix the problem.

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans
Administration from being taken into account for purposes of the employer mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Bill passed the House on March 11th. The vote count was 406/1.

This is the way Congress is supposed to work. This should be Trumpeted as a Bi-Partisan victory.

Instead the Media sticks to the Partisan rhetoric (when there is no Breaking News they still haven't found a missing plane,that is) .

Does this affect the employee count at all?
Say, the company has exactly 50 employees of which two are veterans, only 48 are eligible for care therefore, so does the company still need to
provide for those, or would it need 50 eligible employees?

benrl
Just another example of how it was rushed through and shoved down our throats before it was anywhere near ready for public consumption.

Its not just Obamas mess, its the whole system, its a perfect example of what the Partisanship and death of comprise does for the running of
government.

It ruins it.

We need to kick ever Rep and Dem, out of office, any incumbent that is there now, has had their chance and needs to be gone.

Why do ya'll always want to throw out the baby right along with the bath water?

Hell, we knew it wasn't going to be perfect when they refused to provide a seat at the table for "single-payer"/"public option" and/or "Medicare
for all" representatives, but then neither was Medicare, (perfect that is) when it was first enacted.

If Congress would quit spending every waking moment on futile attempts to repeal the damn thing and spend just a little of that time, (which we're
paying for by the way) to correct the deficiencies within it, we could very well end up with something that benefits all Americans.

Working together to fix problems like the one presented in the OP is exactly what Congress is supposed to be doing. On the other hand, wasting
taxpayer dollars by refusing to consider anything other than repeal, (47+ times) when the odds of getting the POTUS to sign it are less than zero,
should be considered criminal IMO.

Do you HONESTLY think that this bill is fixable? The whole idea of forcing Americans to pay for a private product is the most unAmerican thing I've
ever heard, there is no fixing such a thing. If you took out the part that forces Americans to buy a private product then you've effectively gutted
the bill to worthless status. Repeal and replace is the only answer to this. If single payer is the answer, fine, but the ACA isn't and to pretend
like it is fixable is absurd. Get rid of it.

Do you HONESTLY think that this bill is fixable? The whole idea of forcing Americans to pay for a private product is the most unAmerican thing I've
ever heard, there is no fixing such a thing. If you took out the part that forces Americans to buy a private product then you've effectively gutted
the bill to worthless status. Repeal and replace is the only answer to this. If single payer is the answer, fine, but the ACA isn't and to pretend
like it is fixable is absurd. Get rid of it.

If it weren't for the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, the ACA would have been single-payer from the get go. Furthermore, nothing is un-fixable, not
even this. I'm quite confident that we will indeed morph the ACA into a single-payer, universal healthcare system where profit is taken out of the
formula for providing coverage. It's just a matter of time and the sooner that the GOP decides to play a constructive, (as opposed to obstructive)
roll in the process, the sooner it will happen.

I agree. It's not the Universal Healthcare that I think we should be aiming for and I really dislike the homage to the corporate overlords however...
it passed, it's law, it's what people voted for. Time to stop trying to get it repealed, it's a huge waste of time, money and campaigning. Now it's
time to get it uncoupled from corporate and remove the tax penalty for not having health care.

I like the Bill in the OP, I like the incentive to hire vets. As much as I truly hate war and everything that goes along with it, vets always have my
utmost respect and they are treated like dirt when their service is up often by the same people who prey on fear, appeal to patriotic duty and praise
the sacrifices as 18 year olds get sent on their first tours. In my mind if ever there should be privileged groups, it should be vets and refugees of
the battles we wage or the chaos we create, they get a pass to the front of the line from me.

I'm not sure how the ACA can be fixed because everything it is being sold as, is actually the opposite, and everyone knows it.

So to fix Obama care would require the enforcement of making everything Obama said about it's benefits to be brought up to a state of reality instead
of falsehoods and blatant lies. Wouldn't it?

Or should everyone ignore all it was said to be and agree we want the fake version?
I really want to know, because this sort of ping pong between fantasy and reality is not good for anyone's mental health, but then maybe it was
planned that way? Ahaha!

And a huge component of "FIXING IT" would be to make the entire thing legal instead of being illegal like right now. How could that even be made to
happen? I know, lets just immediately institute the North Korean methods of law making! that will solve that. Hmm, actually He already did that
somewhat, but it was wasn't to fix it...

alienreality
I'm not sure how the ACA can be fixed because everything it is being sold as is actually the opposite, and everyone knows it.
Everything about it is actually the worlds most brazen case of felony fraud committed by a president to date.

You may want to re think that.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President
Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati. FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be
complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence
analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the
only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government
has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the
Union address. FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian
intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution
that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,"
he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more
strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the
Press." FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons
program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director
George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush. FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of
tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking
language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has
trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America
without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7 . FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the
U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside
Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned
and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring
ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7. FACT: Said drones can't
fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than
your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence
over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case
at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address. FACT: Despite a
massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or
anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical
weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security
Council. FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the
United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon
fodder

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." --
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press. FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east,
west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush
in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003. FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA
claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a
report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment,
the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

Flatfish
If Congress would quit spending every waking moment on futile attempts to repeal the damn thing and spend just a little of that time, (which we're
paying for by the way) to correct the deficiencies within it, we could very well end up with something that benefits all Americans.
Working together to fix problems like the one presented in the OP is exactly what Congress is supposed to be doing. On the other hand, wasting
taxpayer dollars by refusing to consider anything other than repeal, (47+ times) when the odds of getting the POTUS to sign it are less than zero,
should be considered criminal IMO.

That is the difference in world views between members of these Boards. Some see a broken Government and believe "We the People" need to fix it.
Others see a broken Government and want it destroyed, to be replaced with.....(I don't think they've thought that far ahead.

)

The majority of the country want Obamacare fixed not repealed. That's why I found this bill quite refreshing. The sooner those on Capital Hill
concentrate on their Jobs the better.

according to a survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies that found 54 percent of respondents say they want lawmakers to
repair Obamacare, while 28 percent say they want to eliminate it. Another 17 percent say they want the law to remain as is.

Do you HONESTLY think that this bill is fixable? The whole idea of forcing Americans to pay for a private product is the most unAmerican thing I've
ever heard, there is no fixing such a thing. If you took out the part that forces Americans to buy a private product then you've effectively gutted
the bill to worthless status. Repeal and replace is the only answer to this. If single payer is the answer, fine, but the ACA isn't and to pretend
like it is fixable is absurd. Get rid of it.

If it weren't for the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, the ACA would have been single-payer from the get go. Furthermore, nothing is un-fixable, not
even this. I'm quite confident that we will indeed morph the ACA into a single-payer, universal healthcare system where profit is taken out of the
formula for providing coverage. It's just a matter of time and the sooner that the GOP decides to play a constructive, (as opposed to obstructive)
roll in the process, the sooner it will happen.

Nice pipe dream you got there buddy. By the way, I got a bridge to sell you, it's very nice.

Like I said before, stripping this bill so that it doesn't require everyone to buy private insurance and go to a single payer, completely changes
EVERYTHING about the law. Might as well repeal and replace at that point.

Also, if you HONESTLY think the government intends to even go to a single payer system, you have deluded yourself. The reason we have to still buy
private insurance in the ACA is because the government didn't want to destroy the health care industry with this law, which a single payer system
will undoubtedly do. Sure Republicans may have obstructed this part of the law, but the Democrats never had any intention of seriously implementing a
single payer system. Why else do you think they compromised with the Republicans to get the current ACA?

This law is a disaster and if the country knows what's good for it, it will just abandon it as a bad experiment.

I don't care for that part either but it's not the first time that this type of mandate has been instituted. It's the same for auto insurance here
in Texas and I have to admit that it lowered the number of un-insured motorist on our highways.

benrl
That is wrong.

The instant Single payer or Public option was killed (due to the death of compromise)

The Dems should of backed off, regrouped and tried.

I think that's exactly what happened to Hillary on her first attempt to reform healthcare when she was First Lady. She ended up backing off and we
ended up getting nowhere with respect to reform. You know what they say, don't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results because it
ain't gonna happen. At least this time, we got the process started.

benrl
BOTH SIDES FAILED US.

AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL.

THEY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATIONS.

That is where their interest lies, not in the people.

It is why we are forced to Purchase a retail product, and not having any form of "affordable" care.

Both sides may have failed but at least one side tried. The other side was hell bent on obstructing any and every initiative coming out of the White
House, at each and every opportunity.

I agree it's not perfect but, given time, we'll fix it. At least people are talking about it now and comparing it to countries with true universal
care. Once they realize what needs to be fixed, they'll demand it and it will happen.

Flatfish
If Congress would quit spending every waking moment on futile attempts to repeal the damn thing and spend just a little of that time, (which we're
paying for by the way) to correct the deficiencies within it, we could very well end up with something that benefits all Americans.
Working together to fix problems like the one presented in the OP is exactly what Congress is supposed to be doing. On the other hand, wasting
taxpayer dollars by refusing to consider anything other than repeal, (47+ times) when the odds of getting the POTUS to sign it are less than zero,
should be considered criminal IMO.

That is the difference in world views between members of these Boards. Some see a broken Government and believe "We the People" need to fix it.
Others see a broken Government and want it destroyed, to be replaced with.....(I don't think they've thought that far ahead.

)

The majority of the country want Obamacare fixed not repealed. That's why I found this bill quite refreshing. The sooner those on Capital Hill
concentrate on their Jobs the better.

according to a survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies that found 54 percent of respondents say they want lawmakers to
repair Obamacare, while 28 percent say they want to eliminate it. Another 17 percent say they want the law to remain as is.

Obamacare will morph into Single Payer eventually. The only question is...How long does it have to take?

I couldn't agree more and I too, see the recent action taken by Congress as a move in the right direction. Those people who think that the whole
country wants the ACA repealed need to pull their heads out of the sand and quit watching the lies and propaganda being offer up by Fox News.

Do you HONESTLY think that this bill is fixable? The whole idea of forcing Americans to pay for a private product is the most unAmerican thing I've
ever heard, there is no fixing such a thing. If you took out the part that forces Americans to buy a private product then you've effectively gutted
the bill to worthless status. Repeal and replace is the only answer to this. If single payer is the answer, fine, but the ACA isn't and to pretend
like it is fixable is absurd. Get rid of it.

If it weren't for the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, the ACA would have been single-payer from the get go. Furthermore, nothing is un-fixable, not
even this. I'm quite confident that we will indeed morph the ACA into a single-payer, universal healthcare system where profit is taken out of the
formula for providing coverage. It's just a matter of time and the sooner that the GOP decides to play a constructive, (as opposed to obstructive)
roll in the process, the sooner it will happen.

Like I said before, stripping this bill so that it doesn't require everyone to buy private insurance and go to a single payer, completely changes
EVERYTHING about the law. Might as well repeal and replace at that point.

Also, if you HONESTLY think the government intends to even go to a single payer system, you have deluded yourself. The reason we have to still buy
private insurance in the ACA is because the government didn't want to destroy the health care industry with this law, which a single payer system
will undoubtedly do. Sure Republicans may have obstructed this part of the law, but the Democrats never had any intention of seriously implementing a
single payer system. Why else do you think they compromised with the Republicans to get the current ACA?

Hardly, I can't think of a single country that currently has universal healthcare coverage that doesn't also have a private, for-profit
healthcare insurance market. I'm not saying that they're not going to put up a fight, but at least now we're having that fight.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.